Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus in part and directed the district court to dissolve a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the State from enforcing a COVID-19-related health directive against a provider of surgical abortions. The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) issued a directive requiring that all non-medically necessary surgeries be postponed in response to Executive Order 20-03, directing the ADH to do everything reasonably possible to respond to and recover from the COVID-19 virus.After adopting the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in In re Abbott, No. 20-50264, 2020 WL 1685929 (5th Cir. April 7, 2020), the court held that the State is entitled to mandamus relief because it has satisfied its burden in demonstrating that it has no other means to obtain the relief that it seeks, the State is clearly and indisputably entitled to the writ, and entry of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the Supreme Court held that, when faced with a public health crisis, a state may implement measures that infringe on constitutional rights, subject to certain limitations. The court found that the district court's failure to apply the Jacobson framework produced a patently erroneous result. In this case, the directive bears a real and substantial relation to the State's interest in protecting public health in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic; the directive is not, beyond all question, a prohibition of pre-viability abortion in violation of the Constitution because it is a delay, not a ban, and contains emergency exceptions; and the district court clearly abused its discretion in finding that the provider is likely to prevail on its argument that the directive will likely operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion in a large fraction of the cases in which the directive is relevant. The court declined to exercise its mandamus power to direct the district court to dismiss the supplemental complaint, and denied the emergency motion to stay the ex parte TRO and for a temporary administrative stay as moot. View "In Re: Leslie Rutledge" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment in favor of law enforcement officers and the City, in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff after the death of her son. The court held that the officers' actions did not amount to constitutionally excessive force. In this case, the undisputed facts show that the officers discovered the son acting erratically, and even though the son was held in a secure cell, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to fear that he would intentionally or inadvertently physically harm himself. Furthermore, the son actively resisted the officers' attempts to subdue him, and officers held him in the prone position only until he stopped actively fighting against the restraints and the officers. Therefore, the court held that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim. View "Lombardo v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, disability discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court held that plaintiff's discrimination claim failed because Mid Dakota offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions: his inability to get along with others; plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claims failed because he failed to show he was retaliated against for reporting racial slurs and racially charged comments; plaintiff's False Claims Act retaliation claim failed because there was no evidence, direct or otherwise, that his decision to report the allegedly fraudulent billing practices of a colleague caused—much less solely caused—Mid Dakota to force him out; and plaintiff's claim under the North Dakota Business Corporation Act failed because he was an at-will employee. View "Bharadwaj v. Mid Dakota Clinic" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that plaintiff failed to allege a claim that a state prosecutor retaliated against him for seeking unpaid overtime compensation. The court held that plaintiff waived his First Amendment retaliation claim by failing to brief the issue; because plaintiff is not an employee under section 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the district court did not err in dismissing his claim; because plaintiff failed to point to any alteration or extinguishment of a right or legal status on appeal, he failed to state a due process claim; and because plaintiff failed to allege a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. 1985(2), his sections 1985(3) and 1986 claims also failed. Finally, the court held that there was no error in dismissing plaintiff's state law claims and in denying him leave to file a third amended complaint. View "Liscomb v. Boyce" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the sheriff and sheriff's deputies, alleging that they violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and his right to due process.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could believe that the location of the keys to a seized vehicle was reasonably related to the suspected crime because it could provide evidence that plaintiff himself placed the car on the property rather than someone else; the seizure of antique handguns, guns in unopened boxes, and holsters were covered under the second warrant authorizing the seizure of any and all handguns in plaintiff's home; the second warrant was sufficiently particular; the sheriff was entitled to summary judgment on claims against him in his individual capacity and in his official capacity; and plaintiff had an adequate state court remedy to obtain the return of the seized items. View "Thiel v. Korte" on Justia Law

Within two months after plaintiff filed suit against Holiday seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Holiday remedied the violations. Three months later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Holiday, holding that the post-suit alterations mooted plaintiff's accessibility claims. Furthermore, because there was no fair notice of the flared-sides issue, the disputed measurements are not a genuine issue of material fact. The court also held that the district court correctly ruled that nominal damages are not available under Title III of the ADA, and that requesting them does not affect mootness. View "Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violation of his due process rights in connection with discipline imposed on him. The court held that the conditions of confinement that plaintiff faced during administrative segregation and upon his transfer to the Iowa State Penitentiary did not amount to an atypical and significant deprivation when compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life.The court held that the transfer to a higher security facility alone is insufficient to establish an atypical and significant hardship, and thus the court must examine the conditions of confinement. In this case, plaintiff failed to set forth facts describing his conditions of confinement while in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention. Furthermore, plaintiff's reference to his loss of employment, wages, security classification, security points, and inmate tier status upon his transfer did not amount to atypical and significant hardship under precedent. View "Smith v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former detainee at the detention center, filed suit against the sheriff and nurse, alleging that defendants delayed his access to adequate medical treatment for a serious condition while he was detained.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a submissible case. In this case, the nurse's actions demonstrated concern for plaintiff's condition and showed repeated efforts to make arrangements for surgery. Even if the nurse could be second-guessed for not acting more aggressively when the doctor's office delayed, her handling of the situation was at most negligent and does not amount to deliberate indifference that violates the Due Process Clause. Because plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence that the nurse was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, it follows that the sheriff did not violate plaintiff's rights by supposedly turning a blind eye to his complaints about the nurse. Likewise, claims against defendants in their official capacities, which are treated as claims against the municipality, failed for lack of a constitutional violation. View "Morris v. Cradduck" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against UND Law under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), alleging that UND Law discriminated against him because of his mental illness when it rejected his admission application.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to UND Law, holding that plaintiff failed to show that UND Law's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting plaintiff's application was pretext for discrimination. The court reasoned that UND Law's holistic approach to application reviews did not discriminate against plaintiff in determining that he would not be a good fit for UND Law. In this case, plaintiff had dropped out of law school three times, had a very low undergraduate GPA, and submitted out-of-date recommendation letters. View "Power v. University of North Dakota School of Law" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action alleging a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's claim where plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim based on the statutory elements of the ADA. In this case, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that defendant refused to consider rehiring him because of his disability. The court also held that plaintiff's request for leave to amend was not futile and should have been granted. View "Cook v. George's, Inc." on Justia Law